Though if we're allowing for interactions mediated through a non-mater source then the other forces probably start to work again given the nature of their force carriers and we're dealing with a different set of problems.As another aside, the relativistic interpretation is that light is not directly affected by gravity. Photons always travel along the shortest path through space-time (the geodesic). Gravity distorts space-time itself, making the "straight" path in four-space be a curved path in three dimensions. From this perspective gravitational lenses don't bend the light, they bend the space through which the light passes.@WWW
Just a sidepoint, but you have mentioned, or alluded to that light isn't affected by gravity... It's actually one of those weird characteristics of particle/wave duality, it is affected by gravity. Thats how we can see (detect) black holes, by looking at reflections of stars. Once again, just a side point.
I'm not sure what you are saying. What does "mediated through a non-mater source" mean? And when did I suggest that the other fundamental forces stopped working?
|
But... the significant portion that's turned into light weighs the same...Before we make the claim that being affected by gravity is "not ignoring", let me remind those wishing to tread this part that we do not know what gravity is. For that matter, we don't even know how attractive forces work, although we have solid theories about repulsive forces.True, we don't know exactly what gravity is yet. But our understanding of other attractive forces such as that between oppositely charged particles or opposing magnetic poles is just as solid as our understanding of electromagnetic repulsive forces.
Hrmm, I did get my information from a freshman. I'll get more info from my brother who just finished his physics degree. Perhaps you have a good read on electromagnetic forces that doesn't involve all the math? I've only taken multi-variable calculus, tensors are still a little bit out of reach (especially for a CS major who really doesn't want any more math O.o)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell me, what is fluff? Define "fluff". Give me a solid reason why this is "fluff" and why many other similar rules statements are not "fluff".Fluff is text that doesn't use defined mechanical game terms. What other "similar rules are you talking about"?
For other magic weapon enchants that have fluff:
Corrosive:"becomes slick with acid" Slick is a fluff description.
Courageous: "A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle." This is fluff.
Cunning:"This special ability allows a weapon to find chinks in a foe's defenses using the wielder's knowledge of the target" Fluff, you don't actually have to succeed a knowledge check to gain the benefit.
Furious:"A furious weapon serves as a focus for its wielder's anger." Fluff description, can be changed with no impact if you refluff rage.and so on.
Note that each of those is the first sentence of a paragraph. (And cunning may not require a check, it still does require ranks in knowledge skills)
Doesn't use mechanical game terms? Is "ignore" a mechanical game term?
Would almost the entire second paragraph of fireball be considered fluff by your definition?
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
Specifically, the bolded sentence. Absolutely no "mechanical game terms" in your sense (assuming you consider the word "ignore" to not be a mechanical game term), but if one of my players tries to shoot a fireball through an invisible barrier, you better believe I won't treat that statement as fluff.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When we know what the rules actually say (via the FAQ), that is how you read it.What about when they post a FAQ that says the RAW is wrong?
They have made two types of FAQ.
- Errata coming in new printings.
- Clarifications, as in you guys are not reading the RAW correctly, this is what those words mean.
Hrmm, I did get my information from a freshman. I'll get more info from my brother who just finished his physics degree. Perhaps you have a good read on electromagnetic forces that doesn't involve all the math? I've only taken multi-variable calculus, tensors are still a little bit out of reach (especially for a CS major who really doesn't want any more math O.o)
For the record, my degrees are in physics and math. If you want a good explanation of quantum electrodynamics without the really heavy math, my recommendation is "QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter," by Richard Feynman. This is a less mathematically focused version of several of his famous lectures.
Feynman's ability to explain physics is legendary, and since his Nobel was for inventing QED, you couldn't find a more authoritative source for the subject. If you don't mind the math, the complete Feynman lecture series is available for free from CalTech.
On a similar topic, the best book ever written about relativity is "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein. It is short and only requires algebra I level math. It puts the lie to the popular view that Einstein was a terrible teacher.
Sorry to everyone here, BTW. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but I have a hard time staying quiet when the topic of physics comes up. :)
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you have to ignore what the RAW actually says to "align with their interpretation" you are deviating from the RAW
Again you are not deviating, you are interpreting the rules incorrectly. If your version of RAW is different from their version of RAW and they don't say it will be errated, then you are not using the expected RAW. You are using your own custom version, which to some sound a lot like house rules, but to you are RAW.
Oh it wasn't that you said the other forces don't work, but rather that your mention about gravity brought to mind the idea.
But anyway, you know force carriers, like the gluon.
Thanks for the clarification. I see the posts you were talking about now. You are correct that integrating the other non-gravitational forces with electromagnetism does make the math more complicated.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you have to ignore what the RAW actually says to "align with their interpretation" you are deviating from the RAWAgain you are not deviating, you are interpreting the rules incorrectly. If your version of RAW is different from their version of RAW and they don't say it will be errated, then you are not using the expected RAW. You are using your own custom version, which to some sound a lot like house rules, but to you are RAW.
Rulebook states SLAs are different from and not the same thing as spells.
One FAQ answer says SLAs count as spells.
Another FAQ answer says SLAs do not count as spells. +1 +2
???
According to you we're just reading it wrong and the rulebook expects us to extrapolate that SLAs are spells sometimes for some purposes and not for others?
The FAQ can be wrong about the rules. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not really very reliable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not an exception. It's not even presented anything like an exception. It's a blatant contradiction. Pretending otherwise is seriously dishonest.
|
|
@Gisher
I'll definitely take a look at Feynman's work, I almost completely forgot he was a physics teacher. I read one of his books about teaching awhile ago, great read. "Surely your joking" I think the title was.
As towards the general discussion, I don't really think there's any thing in our world that could mimic BE weapons. Which leads me to think that it's less like light, and more like divine energy (which often includes a light of some sort).
|
|
It's not an exception. It's not even presented anything like an exception. It's a blatant contradiction. Pretending otherwise is seriously dishonest.
Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
It's a very specific exception to the normal rule, not a mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you have to ignore what the RAW actually says to "align with their interpretation" you are deviating from the RAWAgain you are not deviating, you are interpreting the rules incorrectly. If your version of RAW is different from their version of RAW and they don't say it will be errated, then you are not using the expected RAW. You are using your own custom version, which to some sound a lot like house rules, but to you are RAW.Rulebook states SLAs are different from and not the same thing as spells.
One FAQ answer says SLAs count as spells.
Another FAQ answer says SLAs do not count as spells. +1 +2
???
Your wording would suggest that the FAQ's include the obviously contradictory statements "SLAs count as spells" and "SLAs do not count as spells," but they don't contain anything like those universal statements. They simply state that SLA's meet some spellcasting requirements, but not others. There are lots of other things that have similarly situational equivalencies. For example, levels of Eldritch Knight can count as levels of wizard for the purposes of meeting the prerequisites for feats, but not for purposes of advancing familiar abilities.
According to you we're just reading it wrong and the rulebook expects us to extrapolate that SLAs are spells sometimes for some purposes and not for others?
The FAQ can be wrong about the rules. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not really very reliable.
My interpretation of the RAW is that SLA's do not qualify as meeting prerequisites. But I think the wording of that FAQ, with the statement that it might be rescinded or amended if it proved too powerful, makes it clear that this is an experiment. I don't think it was intended to clarify RAW as it is, but rather to see if this is a workable version of future RAW. I don't feel that this FAQ said that I was reading the rulebooks the wrong way, but rather suggesting a different interpretation might make the game more interesting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not an exception. It's not even presented anything like an exception. It's a blatant contradiction. Pretending otherwise is seriously dishonest.It's a very specific exception to the normal rule, not a mistake.Spell-Like Abilities, Casting, and Prerequisites: Does a creature with a spell-like ability count as being able to cast that spell for the purpose of prerequisites or requirements?
Yes.
For example, the Dimensional Agility feat (Ultimate Combat) has "ability to use the abundant step class feature or cast dimension door" as a prerequisite; a barghest has dimension door as a spell-like ability, so the barghest meets the "able to cast dimension door prerequisite for that feat.Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
I think what Aratrok meant was that in the rulebook, it is not in any way presented as or indicated to be an exception; thus, the FAQ adds information that is not written in the rules (and thus isn't part of RAW).
Especially when comparing prestige class & feat requirements to magic item requirements this disconnect becomes apparent; you qualify for a feat that requires cure light wounds while failing to qualify for a wand that requires cure light wounds.Since there is absolutely zilch that even hints at this in the rulebook, that means that the FAQ ruling was either making up a completely new rule, or changing an existing rule, in at least one of those cases.
Personally I don't mind that and have decent faith in the FAQ system (though I often don't agree with the specific rulings), I think it's fine if the FAQ does something between clarifications and errata, but it's something to be aware of, rather than believing the FAQ is dedicated to clarifications of text already in the rules.
|
Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.
Greenwood Armor is living armor. Because Brilliant ignores Armor bonuses, no exceptions given, it goes through them. Greenwood armor has no language that it prevails over Brilliant weapons.
A Tower shield being planted and providing cover effectively turns it into an object, akin to a table you kick over, and thus not providing Shield bonuses. I have no problem with Brilliant not punching through once you transform the use of the item.
Kindly note that you can use feats and weapons to get Shield bonuses. Brilliant passes through them.
Kindly note that parry rules require you to use a weapon to parry. Weapons are non=living objects. Thus, you can't parry a Brilliant weapon except with your bare hands.
except there's no rule saying Brilliant weapons can't be parried, either.The Defender enhancement assumes you are using the weapon to parry once it is activated. Weapons are not alive. Brilliant should ignore Defender since it will pass right through the weapon. It doesn't. It only ignores shield and armor bonuses.
Question on a few things here....when were Parrying rules added to the game? Also were is this Defender enchantment...cant find it in the srd.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The FAQ can be wrong about the rules. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not really very reliable.
We couldn't differ more. Those two touch on different things, SLA count for some things and don't for others. When you skip the tracks and take the train out into a field, expect odd things.
The FAQ can be wrong about the rules. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not really very reliable.We couldn't differ more. Those two touch on different things, SLA count for some things and don't for others. When you skip the tracks and take the train out into a field, expect odd things.
I guess it depends on how you view the FAQ. If you view it as _part_ of the RAW, as one of the instances that makes the rules, there's no issue. The issue only exists if you view the FAQ as only clarifying rules that already where written in the book; in that case "it counts for some things and not for others" isn't a part of the rules. And with that I don't mean that the language is vague or contradicting, as can be in many other cases, but that in the case of SLA's, there is literally not a word that indicates that it works differently for fulfilling prerequisites for wands and for feats.
So if you have the stance that the FAQ only clarifies already existing rules, then yes, it can be wrong (and is so sometimes).
If you have the stance that the FAQ at least sometimes makes the rulings, it can't be "wrong" more than the core rulebook can. It can be contradictory and need further rulings, but it's not "wrong".
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you have the stance that the FAQ at least sometimes makes the rulings, it can't be "wrong" more than the core rulebook can.
The FAQ clarifies written rules and expands on unwritten rules.
By issue is far more often than not, the "FAQ isn't RAW" crowd point out other cases where the FAQ is clarifying and reject it as "not RAW" when they are simply reading the RAW wrong in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.
Mage Armor and Shield spell are magical force effects, in what way can they be considered living matter?
Greenwood Armor is living armor. Because Brilliant ignores Armor bonuses, no exceptions given, it goes through them. Greenwood armor has no language that it prevails over Brilliant weapons.
Greenwood special materials is living matter it doesnt need to have anything specifically spelled out about Brilliant Energy in its discription as the Brilliant Energy discription covers it under the 'non-living matter' part.
A Tower shield being planted and providing cover effectively turns it into an object, akin to a table you kick over, and thus not providing Shield bonuses. I have no problem with Brilliant not punching through once you transform the use of the item.
This is assuming the 'non-living matter' discription is fluff, and of course YOU not having a problem with it working that ways doesnt mean that how it should work.
Kindly note that you can use feats and weapons to get Shield bonuses. Brilliant passes through them.
And if your using non-living matter objects to get these shield bonuses Brilliant energy weapons will just pass right through as in the Brilliant Energy discription.
Kindly note that parry rules require you to use a weapon to parry. Weapons are non=living objects. Thus, you can't parry a Brilliant weapon except with your bare hands.
except there's no rule saying Brilliant weapons can't be parried, either.
No rule except sommon sense, you can still parry Brilliant Energy weapons because the weapon isnt completely made of Brilliant Energy so you can use the non energy parts to affect a parry.
The Defender enhancement assumes you are using the weapon to parry once it is activated. Weapons are not alive. Brilliant should ignore Defender since it will pass right through the weapon. It doesn't. It only ignores shield and armor bonuses.
Couldnt find the Defender Enchantment so cant comment on this.
The Brilliant Energy enchantment costs at a minimum 50k gold so it should have some pretty good effects to go with the cost
Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.Mage Armor and Shield spell are magical force effects, in what way can they be considered living matter?
The claim isn't that they're living matter, but that they're non-living non-matter (they're force effects). Though that doesn't matter, as the BE description doesn't say "Does not ignore anything except non-living matter"
Greenwood special materials is living matter it doesnt need to have anything specifically spelled out about Brilliant Energy in its discription as the Brilliant Energy discription covers it under the 'non-living matter' part.
No, not really. Greenwood being living means the "ignores non-living matter" part doesn't apply to it - it doesn't mean the "ignores shield bonuses" doesn't apply to it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule A says X
Rule B says Y because of X
X does not apply to sitution Z
Does rule B still apply?
(The answer is no, so long as rule A is a rule)
Greenwood armor only becomes a problem when you ignore rule A, or in this specific case "BE weapons ignore non-living matter".
Rule A says X
Rule B says Y because of X
X does not apply to sitution Z
Does rule B still apply?(The answer is no, so long as rule A is a rule)
Greenwood armor only becomes a problem when you ignore rule A, or in this specific case "BE weapons ignore non-living matter".
I had forgotten the "because of" clause in the BE description. That changes things a lot when it comes to figuring out intent. But yeah, I kinda agree then that greenwood armor should probably work against BE at least according to what appears to be the intent, even if it doesn't by the strictest RAWy reading.
Armor and shields made of living matter effect brilliant energy weapons.
Why would armor or shields made of greenwood be bypassed by brilliant energy? They are made of living matter so the 'ignores non-living matter' part of the disrption comes into play.
While I've kinda changed position since, I don't agree with the second sentence, in fact I think it's the reverse; they are made of living matter, so the "ignores non-living matter" is completely irrelevant either way. Now, the "because of" clause changes things a lot, but something being living doesn't necessarily mean it isn't ignored by a BE weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The claim isn't that they're living matter, but that they're non-living non-matter (they're force effects). Though that doesn't matter, as the BE description doesn't say "Does not ignore anything except non-living matter"
Mage Armor and the Shield spell are NOT non-living objects. Brilliant goes through them. The description of Brilliant immediately contradicts itself thereby.Mage Armor and Shield spell are magical force effects, in what way can they be considered living matter?
I suppose we could argue that the manifestations of the mage armor and shield spells are either transparent or translucent so that the light making up the brilliant energy weapon passes through them like any other light would. :)